Our Covid Response

[Phoenixmgs]

Your problem, as always, is identifying one aspect and then hyper-focusing on it.

Vaccine protection derives from antibodies, B-cells, and T-cells. Some wane faster than others, and B-cells wane relatively slowly (though wane they do). And so, since it's useful for your position, you'll focus on them as if they're solely the important ones, and write off antibodies which wane much quicker.

No, that ain't how it works. Vaccines achieve their level of protection from all 3.

COVID vaccine immunity is waning — how much does that matter?

As debates about booster shots heat up, what’s known about the duration of vaccine-based immunity is still evolving.

www.nature.com

Feel free to read the posts which have already laid out my positions if you'd like to address them.

Your problem is you make bullshit claims that immunity is not stopping severe disease, which it is. How does that article in any way prove severe disease is not being adverted due to immunity but due to boosters, reinfection, and less severe variant? Ever think these variants are less severe because covid isn't a novel virus anymore (our immune systems know it) vs the variant being less severe? It's kinda hard to study people that have never seen the virus or never been vaccinated at this point.

You never outlined your plan, you just give snippets here and there. You mention using vaccines can slow infections shortly after being given but don't say how to use this in any meaningful way. I even listed in the most ideal way of doing that, you wouldn't be accomplishing anything anyway. You mention contact tracing but that's not possible to be done regardless if we squashed covid to near 0 or it's all over the place, it's not a virus that can be contact traced in any effective manner.

 

[Silvanus]

Your problem is you make bullshit claims that immunity is not stopping severe disease, which it is.

Didn't claim that.

How does that article in any way prove severe disease is not being adverted due to immunity but due to boosters, reinfection, and less severe variant? Ever think these variants are less severe because covid isn't a novel virus anymore (our immune systems know it) vs the variant being less severe? It's kinda hard to study people that have never seen the virus or never been vaccinated at this point.

Well, I thought you might actually read it, but I suppose that was always going to be too much to ask.

Real-world data from diagnostic-testing records and hospital databases suggest that this might be the case. In Israel, for example, elderly people who got their shots at the beginning of the year seemed to have almost double the risk of severe illness during a July outbreak compared with similar individuals who were immunized more recently. As researchers reported this week, older individuals given a third dose of vaccine were less likely to become infected and much less likely to develop severe disease than those who had not received the boosters.

Preliminary data from the United Kingdom and Qatar would seem to confirm the Israeli experience. Researchers at Public Health England posted a preprint this week detailing a modest but appreciable dip in vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission and death.

Although the results are preliminary, the vaccine’s ability to ward off hospitalization and death seems to drop off.

Reducing rates of infection should help break the cycle of viral transmission, which would ultimately result in fewer cases of severe COVID-19 and death. [...]
Getting more people vaccinated is the single most effective intervention to keep transmission rates low, but any bump in vaccine effectiveness can help as well.

You never outlined your plan, you just give snippets here and there.

No, I've already given an outline of the policies I'd have encouraged. You already know this; it's just part of your approach to endlessly insist people repeat themselves over and over again.

It's an open invitation. You can actually read the posts that already contain the information you requested, and reply if you want. But I'm not going to bother responding to the endless blah-blah-blah insisting that I repeat myself yet again.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Didn't claim that.



Well, I thought you might actually read it, but I suppose that was always going to be too much to ask.




No, I've already given an outline of the policies I'd have encouraged. You already know this; it's just part of your approach to endlessly insist people repeat themselves over and over again.

It's an open invitation. You can actually read the posts that already contain the information you requested, and reply if you want. But I'm not going to bother responding to the endless blah-blah-blah insisting that I repeat myself yet again.

You did claim that.

Very limited effect in your world is very greatly stopping severe disease?

The original vaccines, received over a year ago, are not having that effect.

Severe disease is currently mitigated by the lower severity of Omicron, as well as by much later vaccines or infection.

---

What in any of that you quote is something we haven't known for like a year or so at this point? We know older people have immune systems that don't work as well, we know boosters help them (there's been several studies showing that), we also know boosters don't do anything for the average person. How old is that source to still think vaccination is the single most important thing in keeping infections down?

You've never detailed your plan in a single post, just snippets here and there.And just about all those snippets are wrong anyway like thinking contact tracing can be done against covid. Thus, you're plan isn't going to work anyway. Either actually detail your plan or link me to when you did (which you didn't) or shut up about it.

 

[Silvanus]

You did claim that.

You just quoted a post in which I did not say what you said I did.

That post obviously doesn't say that immunity isn't stopping severe disease.

What in any of that you quote is something we haven't known for like a year or so at this point? We know older people have immune systems that don't work as well, we know boosters help them (there's been several studies showing that), we also know boosters don't do anything for the average person. How old is that source to still think vaccination is the single most important thing in keeping infections down?

I see you've now shifted the goalposts to exclude elderly people.

But regardless of that, the quotes are explicit about the benefits throughout society, not just with the elderly. You can hyper-fixate on the mention of the elderly all you like, but the article still very explicitly says we should be expanding vaccination generally. And it very clearly says protection wanes over time.

You demanded I provide something professional that agrees with me. I've done so. Now I await the usual tactic: nitpicking on irrelevant details (like the "elderly only" farce above) and using that to dismiss the entire study, and then a few posts later you'll swear blind that nobody has provided you with any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You just quoted a post in which I did not say what you said I did.

That post obviously doesn't say that immunity isn't stopping severe disease.




I see you've now shifted the goalposts to exclude elderly people.

But regardless of that, the quotes are explicit about the benefits throughout society, not just with the elderly. You can hyper-fixate on the mention of the elderly all you like, but the article still very explicitly says we should be expanding vaccination generally. And it very clearly says protection wanes over time.

You demanded I provide something professional that agrees with me. I've done so. Now I await the usual tactic: nitpicking on irrelevant details (like the "elderly only" farce above) and using that to dismiss the entire study, and then a few posts later you'll swear blind that nobody has provided you with any evidence whatsoever.

You said it by not including it. Why would you say severe disease is being mitigated by X,Y,Z but not A if A is still doing the job? Also you said the vaccines administered over a year ago are not have that effect (of limiting severe disease). You literally fucking said it.

The original vaccines, received over a year ago, are not having that effect.

Severe disease is currently mitigated by the lower severity of Omicron, as well as by much later vaccines or infection.

---

Why would you need to boost the population when most of them don't need it nor does it provide community benefit? Protection waning doesn't mean you don't have enough protection. T/B-cell immunity isn't waning (or waning very very slowly). I asked for an expert saying vaccines from over a year ago aren't stopping severe disease, which you haven't, and it's a bullshit fucking claim. You shifted the goalposts to only include the elderly and even then the elderly haven't completely lost protection from severe disease.

 

[Silvanus]

You said it by not including it. Why would you say severe disease is being mitigated by X,Y,Z but not A if A is still doing the job? Also you said the vaccines administered over a year ago are not have that effect (of limiting severe disease). You literally fucking said it.

I said the original vaccines are no longer providing the majority of protection. That is true and is not contradicted whatsoever by that post. "Immunity" (such as it is) can have numerous sources. The other sources-- later vaccinations, infection during the interim period-- are providing broader protection now.

Why would you need to boost the population when most of them don't need it nor does it provide community benefit?

I have no interest in following tangential questions at the new site of your goalposts.

Protection waning doesn't mean you don't have enough protection. T/B-cell immunity isn't waning (or waning very very slowly). I asked for an expert saying vaccines from over a year ago aren't stopping severe disease, which you haven't, and it's a bullshit fucking claim. You shifted the goalposts to only include the elderly and even then the elderly haven't completely lost protection from severe disease.

No, I didn't "only" include the elderly, that's your hyper-fixation on a single irrelevant detail. The elderly were mentioned. Meanwhile, other quotes clearly and explicitly describe the population as a whole.

The article very clearly says protection from severe disease wanes significantly over time, and that expanded vaccination helps lower it. It says that in black and white. You asked for a supporting source, and I provided it; if you now blather about it not saying what it clearly and explicitly does say, you're a liar.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I said the original vaccines are no longer providing the majority of protection. That is true and is not contradicted whatsoever by that post. "Immunity" (such as it is) can have numerous sources. The other sources-- later vaccinations, infection during the interim period-- are providing broader protection now.



I have no interest in following tangential questions at the new site of your goalposts.



No, I didn't "only" include the elderly, that's your hyper-fixation on a single irrelevant detail. The elderly were mentioned. Meanwhile, other quotes clearly and explicitly describe the population as a whole.

The article very clearly says protection from severe disease wanes significantly over time, and that expanded vaccination helps lower it. It says that in black and white. You asked for a supporting source, and I provided it; if you now blather about it not saying what it clearly and explicitly does say, you're a liar.

That isn't fucking true. Provide any medical expert or the scientific consensus (as you just love that so much) saying the original vaccines do not protect against severe disease.

Your own data (the Israel data) mentioned exclusively elderly... Your second quote of a source says UK and Qatar confirm Israel data (which was for elderly). Your 3rd quote said the vaccine’s ability to ward off hospitalization and death SEEMS to DROP OFF. The word "seem" means proven? And the word "drop off" means completely gone? Not one of them ever said anything fucking close to applying to the population as a whole. You just read what you fucking want to read.

 

[Silvanus]

That isn't fucking true. Provide any medical expert or the scientific consensus (as you just love that so much) saying the original vaccines do not protect against severe disease.

You've literally just been given a source, which you're now completely misrepresenting in order to dismiss it out-of-hand.

Your own data (the Israel data) mentioned exclusively elderly... Your second quote of a source says UK and Qatar confirm Israel data (which was for elderly).

Read. The. Article.

Says Theodora Hatziioannou, a virologist at the Rockefeller University in New York City, “if protection from disease relies at any level on circulating neutralizing antibodies” — and those molecules are clearly on the decline — “then, yes, the longer out you are from natural infection or from vaccination the worse you will be”.

First off the bat, there are several quotes from doctors that aren't restricted to the elderly. I already gave several of them in the last post, but there's another. Secondly, the section about the UK links to its own pre-print of a separate study, which is not restricted to the elderly. When you said the UK confirmation "was for the elderly" too, it's transparent that you skimmed it and didn't actually take it in.

You just read what you fucking want to read.

You have absolutely zero ability to engage with a source in a reasonable or critical manner, which is why people have become so sick of the constant demands for sources. You're given sources, and then you object on the most paper-thin, foolish bases. You've skimmed it, fixated on a couple of quotes mentioning the elderly, and then come back here with this utter, provable bullshit about the whole article only applying to the elderly. Even though it's full of quotes from doctors speaking about the general public, and it contains data that's not exclusive to the elderly. You've just spotted that one line of attack, and even though it doesn't make the slightest sense, you've dismissed the other 95% of the article.

It's what you do every. single. time.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've literally just been given a source, which you're now completely misrepresenting in order to dismiss it out-of-hand.



Read. The. Article.



First off the bat, there are several quotes from doctors that aren't restricted to the elderly. I already gave several of them in the last post, but there's another. Secondly, the section about the UK links to its own pre-print of a separate study, which is not restricted to the elderly. When you said the UK confirmation "was for the elderly" too, it's transparent that you skimmed it and didn't actually take it in.



You have absolutely zero ability to engage with a source in a reasonable or critical manner, which is why people have become so sick of the constant demands for sources. You're given sources, and then you object on the most paper-thin, foolish bases. You've skimmed it, fixated on a couple of quotes mentioning the elderly, and then come back here with this utter, provable bullshit about the whole article only applying to the elderly. Even though it's full of quotes from doctors speaking about the general public, and it contains data that's not exclusive to the elderly. You've just spotted that one line of attack, and even though it doesn't make the slightest sense, you've dismissed the other 95% of the article.

It's what you do every. single. time.

I looked back at what you quoted and none says what you said it said. Quote the things that prove your claim, why am supposed to search your own sources to prove your claim?

Again, you're quoting things that don't say what you claim. Your virologist source says IF protection from disease relies at any level on circulating neutralizing antibodies. Protection doesn't rely on neutralizing antibodies.

Your link's conclusion says
We observed limited waning in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death more than 20 weeks

Limited waning in your world means no protection? You're claiming the original vaccines are not contributing to limiting severe disease, which isn't close to bring true.

I'm in agreement with the experts and the data we have, how many times do I have to show the CDC charts? You're literally trying to say something (vaccines, in essence, don't do anything ~1 year later) that will literally get you banned from many places for pushing misinformation.

 

[Silvanus]

I looked back at what you quoted and none says what you said it said. Quote the things that prove your claim, why am supposed to search your own sources to prove your claim?

You've literally just been given numerous quotes directly attesting that immunity wanes and booster vaccines are beneficial. They say that explicitly, in black and white. There's nothing more I can do if I provide a direct quote stating it, and you just point-blank refuse to acknowledge it.

Again, you're quoting things that don't say what you claim. Your virologist source says IF protection from disease relies at any level on circulating neutralizing antibodies. Protection doesn't rely on neutralizing antibodies.

"If AT ANY LEVEL". You cannot seriously believe that antibodies play no part in immunisation.

Your link's conclusion says
We observed limited waning in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death more than 20 weeks

Limited waning in your world means no protection? You're claiming the original vaccines are not contributing to limiting severe disease, which isn't close to bring true.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying they "are not contributing". Stop misrepresenting statements to twist them into the most extreme form. You seem incapable of carrying on an argument without turning it into a contextless binary: someone says something wanes, so you immediately turn that into "it does nothing whatsoever". Someone says T-Cells and B-Cells help, so you immediately turn that into "they're the only thing that matters, antibodies are irrelevant".

The stats are right there in the link. There's a table. Showing protection waning by ~20-30% even among younger age groups. It's right there, and I'm begging you to actually read it.

You're literally trying to say something (vaccines, in essence, don't do anything ~1 year later) that will literally get you banned from many places for pushing misinformation.

This is a lie. I didn't say that, you know I didn't say it, and you're lying.

 

[gorfias]

Latest from CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0811-covid-guidance.html

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've literally just been given numerous quotes directly attesting that immunity wanes and booster vaccines are beneficial. They say that explicitly, in black and white. There's nothing more I can do if I provide a direct quote stating it, and you just point-blank refuse to acknowledge it.



"If AT ANY LEVEL". You cannot seriously believe that antibodies play no part in immunisation.



For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying they "are not contributing". Stop misrepresenting statements to twist them into the most extreme form. You seem incapable of carrying on an argument without turning it into a contextless binary: someone says something wanes, so you immediately turn that into "it does nothing whatsoever". Someone says T-Cells and B-Cells help, so you immediately turn that into "they're the only thing that matters, antibodies are irrelevant".

The stats are right there in the link. There's a table. Showing protection waning by ~20-30% even among younger age groups. It's right there, and I'm begging you to actually read it.



This is a lie. I didn't say that, you know I didn't say it, and you're lying.

Booster vaccines are only beneficial for the elderly. There's a reason why the CDC hasn't released booster data for under 50s. Even Paul Offit that looked at other country's data has said that.

Neutralizing/circulating antibodies do not. You're not immune to measles infections because of neutralizing antibodies. You're immune to measles infections because it takes measles longer to infect you than it takes your immune system to make new antibodies. Covid infects you before that, thus you get a covid infection again.

T/B cells are the things that provide long-term protection against any kind of infections. No vaccine or natural immunity depends on circulating antibodies to provide long-term protection. Why would you have to always be making antibodies against everything you've ever had to be protected from all those things? As long as your immune system remembers what antibody worked, it can make more when you get another infection. Your circulating antibody numbers are indeed rather irrelevant with regards to how protected you are.

The tables and figures show barely any drops in severe disease. In fact, even in the elderly when exclude the clinically extremely vulnerable group, the vaccine effectiveness against severe disease was very high. The vulnerable should get a booster, nobody else needs a booster, that's what the data says.

You did say that, I've quoted it like 5 times now...

The original vaccines, received over a year ago, are not having that effect.

Severe disease is currently mitigated by the lower severity of Omicron, as well as by much later vaccines or infection.

Latest from CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0811-covid-guidance.html

The CDC finally recommends against testing the asymptomatic, that was so pointless and stupid the whole time.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Booster vaccines are only beneficial for the elderly. There's a reason why the CDC hasn't released booster data for under 50s. Even Paul Offit that looked at other country's data has said that.

Paul Offit also said that the first booster was technically the third shot in a 3 course vaccine and that you should get vaccinated even if you had covid already, so...

 

[Silvanus]

Booster vaccines are only beneficial for the elderly.

The doctors in the article I provided disagree. You asked for a supporting professional source and I provided one.

Neutralizing/circulating antibodies do not. You're not immune to measles infections because of neutralizing antibodies. You're immune to measles infections because it takes measles longer to infect you than it takes your immune system to make new antibodies. Covid infects you before that, thus you get a covid infection again.

T/B cells are the things that provide long-term protection against any kind of infections. No vaccine or natural immunity depends on circulating antibodies to provide long-term protection. Why would you have to always be making antibodies against everything you've ever had to be protected from all those things? As long as your immune system remembers what antibody worked, it can make more when you get another infection. Your circulating antibody numbers are indeed rather irrelevant with regards to how protected you are.

Then, pray tell, why was protection clearly higher the closer to the date of vaccination?

One would've thought that was because of circulating antibodies. That's what the doctors and scientists have put it down to. But now you're telling me they're basically irrelevant! Hmm!

The tables and figures show barely any drops in severe disease.

20 - 30% = "barely any"?

You did say that, I've quoted it like 5 times now...

"That effect", in my quote, refers to your claim of "greatly stopping severe disease".

There's a difference between "greatly stopping" and "having any effect". Just as I said before, you've taken a statement and pointlessly exaggerated it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Paul Offit also said that the first booster was technically the third shot in a 3 course vaccine and that you should get vaccinated even if you had covid already, so...

He literally told his own son not to get a booster... Yes, a 3 course vaccine for the elderly and vulnerable. He also said you didn't NEED to get the vaccine if you had covid.

Offit advised his own son, who is in his 20s, not to get a third dose. Even with Omicron’s ability to sidestep some of the protection vaccines provide, Offit said, he believes that his son is well protected against serious illness with two shots, so a third just isn’t necessary.

Should Teen Boys Get Boosted?

Third shots for adolescent boys and young men were already a hard sell. Then came Omicron.

www.theatlantic.com

The doctors in the article I provided disagree. You asked for a supporting professional source and I provided one.



Then, pray tell, why was protection clearly higher the closer to the date of vaccination?

One would've thought that was because of circulating antibodies. That's what the doctors and scientists have put it down to. But now you're telling me they're basically irrelevant! Hmm!



20 - 30% = "barely any"?



"That effect", in my quote, refers to your claim of "greatly stopping severe disease".

There's a difference between "greatly stopping" and "having any effect". Just as I said before, you've taken a statement and pointlessly exaggerated it.

Quote the line that the doctors said they are beneficial FOR ALL.

Circulating antibodies work for the short-term, I said long-term. No other vaccine in history do we care about the circulating antibodies for providing long-term protection. Do you get a measles booster because your circulating antibodies waned?

For the Astra-Zeneca vaccine... which wasn't even given in the US.

The data in your study says otherwise. You also said in that quote that A/B/C are currently mitigating severe disease and left out the original vaccines as if they aren't doing anything.

 

[Silvanus]

Quote the line that the doctors said they are beneficial FOR ALL.

You've been given multiple quotes now, in this very thread, that applied to the population at large and were not limited to specific groups.

Circulating antibodies work for the short-term, I said long-term. No other vaccine in history do we care about the circulating antibodies for providing long-term protection. Do you get a measles booster because your circulating antibodies waned?

Circulating antibodies are what gave the vaccines their 90+% protection. You know, the statistics used to justify their use and decide on some above others. Without them, they wane.

If you want to argue that the ~60% protection after 6 months or so is just as good, you're going to have to explain why a thirds drop is insignificant.

The data in your study says otherwise. You also said in that quote that A/B/C are currently mitigating severe disease and left out the original vaccines as if they aren't doing anything.

You obviously haven't read it. Why do we bother? You didn't read the UK one either, before coming out with that nonsense about it being applicable only to the elderly.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've been given multiple quotes now, in this very thread, that applied to the population at large and were not limited to specific groups.



Circulating antibodies are what gave the vaccines their 90+% protection. You know, the statistics used to justify their use and decide on some above others. Without them, they wane.

If you want to argue that the ~60% protection after 6 months or so is just as good, you're going to have to explain why a thirds drop is insignificant.



You obviously haven't read it. Why do we bother? You didn't read the UK one either, before coming out with that nonsense about it being applicable only to the elderly.

No you haven't, you keep posting things that don't say what you think they say. The numbers for the Pfizer vaccine for long-term protection to severe disease are extremely good. Also, the very top vaccine expert in the US told his own son not to get a booster. Why would he do that if a booster was needed for protection from severe disease? Also, why would one need to get boosted when you're naturally getting boosted quite often. The amount of times I've probably been exposed to covid where I got boosted and didn't even realize it is probably quite a bit. I just went to Gencon, it would be like impossible to have not gotten exposed at some point to it. And a couple weeks back, I sat next to someone playing board games who tested positive the next day, and I still didn't catch covid. Why would you be so concerned about getting these boosters if you're not in some high risk group?

90+% against INFECTION. And, no shit Sherlock it was because of circulating antibodies, there's a reason you don't get a head cold right after you just had a head cold, same with any other thing. That short-term protection is not something we ever try to keep going for literally anything else because it's not needed and probably have bad consequences if you kept getting boosted every couple months. The reason for the number of doses was not based on circulating antibodies because basing it on that is stupid. From Paul Offit (about the Pfizer vaccine in particular):
The first dose induced virus-specific neutralizing antibodies, but no detectable cellular immunity. The second dose induced virus-specific neutralizing antibodies at a level tenfold greater than the first dose and the presence of a virus-specific cytotoxic T cells, T helper cells. And and so I think this is not a one dose vaccine. I think if people choose a single dose, I think it puts them at greater risk for having a shorter duration and less complete protection.

The reason the J&J was one dose was because it procced the T cells with a single dose and the mRNAs did not. Nothing to do with circulating antibodies. From Paul Offit again (about the J&J vaccine in particular):
A single dose induces the level of virus-specific neutralizing antibodies. It’s comparable, if not a little less than that, just by that second dose of mRNA containing vaccine, but you get cellular immunity with that first dose.

It is really only applicable to the elderly and in fact really just the at risk elderly because from the data from your own study, the elderly not in the risk group did basically the same as younger aged groups did.

Your study's own data chart below...

 

[Phoenixmgs]

 

[Silvanus]

No you haven't, you keep posting things that don't say what you think they say.

They say protection wanes. They encourage broadly expanding vaccination. That is not debatable.

Also, the very top vaccine expert in the US told his own son not to get a booster. Why would he do that if a booster was needed for protection from severe disease?

I don't give a single shit what the specific doctor you've chosen to become obsessed with this month does. You asked for a single supporting source. I provided one and you're refusing to engage with it on any level except denial.

Your study's own data chart below...

Observe how numbers go down.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

They say protection wanes. They encourage broadly expanding vaccination. That is not debatable.



I don't give a single shit what the specific doctor you've chosen to become obsessed with this month does. You asked for a single supporting source. I provided one and you're refusing to engage with it on any level except denial.



Observe how numbers go down.

Where? You've given me a source that just shows that people in risk groups and immunocompromised should get boosters. Where is there any data or any doctor that has said the average person needs a booster? Paul Offit is not just some doctor, he's the US top vaccine expert.

If a group has a percentage of at risk people that need a booster, then those numbers will go down obviously. They barely even went down for elderly that aren't even in a risk group. And we know that SARS-COV-1 protection is still lasting to this day. Why are you so concerned about boosters for the average person when there's no data saying they are needed? Plus you will get naturally boosted anyway, covid is endemic.

Also, you keep failing to talk about your plan to rid the world of covid.

When the vaccine rolled out, transmission lowered significantly. Similarly, when we were in lockdown, transmission lowered significantly. Countries talked about contact-tracing and widespread testing, but then didn't bother to invest or make them work. Then, when transmission was low (but still widespread), countries pushed to open up ASAP, to get the money flowing again.

And up the transmission went again.

Had we locked down earlier, in concert with other countries, and with a functional contact-tracing system in place, the vaccine could have pushed the transmission down to the level where it was not mutating at nearly the same fast rate.

Instead, we treated it as a magic bullet that can save us from boring lockdowns and miserable news on its own. And we half-assed every other measure.

This plan wouldn't work by the way.